Siman 36

The lung has two membranes, and the lower membrane is red [Rashi 46a] and is thinner than the upper membrane [see Beit Yosef]. If one was perforated without the other, it is kosher, for each one has the capacity to protect the lung so that the air does not exit from it. From the language of the poskim, it is implied that no examination is required at all [Shach, subsection 2]. Nevertheless, since there is a flaw, the great authorities were stringent to examine with saliva on the place of the perforation [Tevuat Shor and Pri Megadim]. However, post facto, if one did not examine, it does not invalidate, and it is obvious that if there is a speck of blood on the other membrane corresponding to the perforation, it is a certain terefah [Levushai Serad]. And so too when the perforation is due to illness; but if it is by way of a thorn or a needle, it is a terefah in any case, and it is obvious [Levushai Serad and see Kereti U-Peleti, and it requires further study].

And if the two membranes were perforated not opposite one another, in the esophagus it is treifah in such a case, as is written in siman 33, and in the gizzard it is kosher in such a case, as is written in siman 49. And it says in the Gemara [43a] the reason is that the gizzard remains at rest and the perforations will not touch one another, but the esophagus, since one eats with it and it is not at rest, it is possible that the perforations will meet one another. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, compares the lung to the gizzard, for the lung also remains at rest; and even though it draws in all types of liquid and is always fluttering, nevertheless, it is at rest in its place. And also regarding this, there is no concern that the air will enter through this perforation and exit through the second perforation, for the two membranes are attached to one another and air will not come between them. And that which is found in the Gemara [46b] that when the inner one is perforated and not the outer one it emits a sound between the two membranes, see there, this is opposite the perforation of the inner one where it certainly emits a sound because of the air, but the air will not travel further than that. And so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch [and according to what I have written, all that they questioned regarding this is well-settled, and examine it closely].

But there are some of the Rishonim who forbid in a case where this one was perforated not opposite that one [Hagahot Ashri and Rabbeinu Yerucham], and they compare the lung to the esophagus, for it is not similar to the gizzard where the two membranes are very attached to one another and are like one membrane, which is not the case with the lung [Issur VeHeter HaAruch]. Furthermore, who is to say that the air does not enter between the two membranes, for the plain meaning of the Gemara [ibid.] implies so. Our teacher, the Rema, and all the great Acharonim ruled accordingly, and such is the custom and one should not deviate. Even a check is of no use in this case, for even if it does not bubble at the time of the check, it is possible that then the air did not enter with force between the two membranes, but during its life the air did enter. Furthermore, for a certain terefah, no check is of any use [Atzei Levush and Levushai Serad].

And specifically when the two perforations are on one side, even if one perforation is in the uma and the second is in the una, but from two sides it is kosher [Taz], for even in the esophagus it is kosher in such a case. And some forbid even on two sides, for it is worse than the esophagus, as the wind has no weight and enters through this side and exits through the other side [Kereti U'Peleti and Tevuot Shor], unless they are in the two rows, this one on the right and this one on the left, for in this there is certainly no concern [Tevuot Shor subsection 3].

Even if the entire upper membrane was peeled and there remained only the thin lower membrane, it is also kosher. And thus the sages, of blessed memory, said [46b]: This lung that was peeled like a red date is kosher; meaning, that the entire upper layer was peeled and only the red lower one remained, it is kosher. And from this wording it implies that it does not require a bedika. However, the Bahag wrote that it requires a bedika, and our teachers agreed with his words, for since there is such a deficiency, it is not logical to permit it without a bedika [the Rosh, the Rashba, and the Ran]. And the bedika is by inflation [the Shach], that he should inflate it properly and see if it is whole and rises with inflation in all places; and if there is a hole in it, that place will not rise with inflation. And there is one who is stringent that it requires a bedika with lukewarm water after the inflation [the Tevuot Shor]. And it is an excessive stringency, for since the early authorities wrote that from the wording of the Gemara it implies that even without a bedika it is kosher, and only the Bahag was stringent to check it, how can we be so stringent as to require lukewarm water [the Levushei Serad and the Beit Ephraim]. And it appears to me that regarding the bedika of inflation, not all shochatim are experts in this, for this requires extra sensitivity to discern if it all rose with inflation, such that there did not remain any small part that did not rise with inflation. Therefore, if he does not know himself to be an expert in this bedika, he must necessarily check with lukewarm water to see if the water does not bubble in any place, for this is easier to sense. And the measure of lukewarm water is like saliva that comes out of the mouth, or like water that is drawn in the summer from the river, and there is no precise measure for this, rather that it should not be very hot nor very cold [the Tevuot Shor], and all the degrees between warmth and coolness are all called lukewarm.

If it was not checked by inflation at all, it is a doubtful terefah. And even though one might ask: behold, it will be explained further on that we are not experts in checking, and all the checks we perform are only due to a stringency, and if by the law of the Gemara a check were required, we would not be experts; if so, since we have said that if it was not checked it is a terefah, then the check is mandatory, and how are we experts in this? For it can be said that since our teachers understood from the language of the Gemara that the check is not mandatory, therefore even though without a check it is a doubtful terefah—for all the words of the Bahag are words of tradition—nevertheless, to say that we should be stringent upon ourselves because we are not experts would be an excessive stringency. Therefore, we rely on our checking [see Tevuot Shor]. And it is simple that even if only the majority of the lung was covered with a scab, the check is also indispensable, for the majority is like the whole.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: However, if a bua is found on a place where the upper skin was peeled, one must rule it treifah, for it is like a membrane that arose due to a wound. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that we fear perhaps the second membrane was also perforated, and the membrane that is found is one that arose due to the wound. We maintain that any membrane that arose due to a wound is not a membrane, for it is not a proper sealing; for this is the reason for the treifut of all sirkhot, as will be explained. The great authorities labored over the reason for this law: for behold, we see that we do not project a defect from one membrane to another membrane, as even if the entire upper membrane was peeled it is kosher, and we do not fear that perhaps the lower membrane was also damaged. If so, why do we care about the bua, to fear that the lower membrane has also passed away? [Levush]. And they wrote that the reason is because of a double defect [Tevu'ot Shor subsection 11 and Levush subsection 16]. In their opinion, this is like a sirkha hanging from a bua, or a bua standing in a place of another defect, which will be explained in siman 37, for there they also explained the reason because of a double defect. However, according to this, what is this that he says, "for it is like a membrane that arose due to a wound"? For the reason is because of a double defect. And they were pressed to explain that it is one and the same: that because there is a double defect, we attribute it to the lower skin also being perforated and a membrane arising upon it [ibid.]. And there is one who says that if it is because of a double defect, it is only in a bua of turbid water and not in clear water; therefore, he attributes it to a membrane that arose due to a wound, for even in such a case it is treifah [Gidulei Ha-Kodesh subsection 41].

And in my humble opinion, this does not seem so, for behold, the essential principles of "two flaws" (tartei lere'uta), from which the later authorities made general rules, details, and minute details, have no foundation or root, neither from the Shas nor from the Rishonim. There are those who disagree with the essentials of this principle [see Pri Megadim in Siftei Da'at, letter 3, in the name of Knesset HaGedolah]. Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not mention these principles. While it is true that there are laws where the reason for the terefah status is due to "two flaws," nevertheless, it is not a general rule for all types of "two flaws" to treat them as if it were a settled halakhah, and everything depends on the matter. In our times, when kosher meat is expensive and the loss has increased beyond measure—and there are cases where in a single animal there may be a loss of up to one hundred gold coins or more—it is impossible for us to be stringent with stringencies that are not from the core of the law. If we were to say that the terefah of "two flaws" is a general rule, how did the early poskim, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch not mention it? Rather, it is certainly not a general rule. In a place where there is no loss, it is certainly a mitzvah to heed the words of the great authorities who were stringent in this. And it will be further explained, with the help of Heaven, in siman 37, section 19.

And the reason for this law appears clear to me, for this is the reason: that if we knew clearly that the peeling occurred first and afterwards the bubble came, we certainly would not be concerned about it. However, perhaps the bubble was formed first, and through the bubble the upper membrane was peeled; and since the upper one was peeled, it is obvious that the lower membrane was peeled, for the bubble is between the skin and the flesh, and since it had the power to peel the upper one, all the more so did it peel the lower one which is closer to it, and afterwards a membrane grew over it. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, says, "one should rule it treifah," for it is like a membrane that grew, etc., and he means that it is a doubtful treifah—doubtful if the peeling preceded and it is nothing, or perhaps the bubble preceded and it caused the peeling to peel, and if so, the membrane that is there now is a membrane that grew due to a wound. And according to this reason, there is no difference between clear water and pus, for in every case it is treifah [as the Shach wrote in subsection 3 and according to the Pri Megadim].

And for this reason, it appears to me that this is only when a portion of the lung has formed a scab and a bua arose upon the place of the scab; but if the scabbing is much more than the place of the bua, we are not concerned to say that perhaps the bua preceded it and it caused the membrane to scab, for we see that the scab is much more than the bua, and this is a clear sign that the bua did not cause the scabbing. And perhaps for this reason our teacher, the Rema, wrote this wording: "if a bua is found on a place where the upper skin was peeled etc.," to be precise that it is specifically when the bua is exactly on the place that was peeled, as I have written, and it does not refer to where it is entirely scabbed, for in that case we see that the bua was not the cause of the scabbing. And he also did not write this law in section 1, which deals there with where one membrane was perforated, for regarding a perforation, when a bua arises there is also no concern, since the perforation is small and the bua of necessity has some surface area, and since there is not a scab over the entire place of the bua, this is a sign that the perforation did not come about because of the bua [and the Tevuot Shor and the Levush prohibit even in a bua over a perforation and likewise where it is entirely scabbed, and they labored over the words of the Rema, see there; and according to what I have written the words are precise, and nevertheless for practical action it requires further study, and without a loss of great magnitude it is treifah in every case, and in a loss of great magnitude one must deliberate on this very much].

The opinion of the great later authorities is that if it is entirely or mostly peeled, it is more severe, for it is treifah even when the blister contains clear water. For even though on account of "two flaws" it is only if the blister contains foul water, nevertheless, since the damage is so great, we are concerned even with clear water that the lower membrane was also damaged. And if a portion of it was peeled or the upper skin was perforated, then if the blister contains foul water it is treifah on account of "two flaws," and with clear water one may permit it in a case of great loss [Smag subsection 3 and Levush subsection 77].

He further wrote: Some say if they inflated the lung and the membrane was torn due to the inflation, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And they disagreed regarding this, for it is a daily occurrence that due to the strength of the inflation it will break, and all the examiners say so, and there is no one who is concerned for it [Bach and Taz, subsection 3]. And some say that this refers to when they inflated it in its normal manner, for in such a case there is necessarily a defect in the membranes [Shach, subsection 5]. And some say that this refers to when around the break there is a bit of dryness or another defect such as a discoloration or the like, for the break is a sign that the dryness is truly dry or the discoloration is a treifah color [ibid.]. And there are those who distinguish that certainly if through the strength of the inflation the membranes and also the flesh itself were broken, we are not concerned for it, for this is due to the strength of the inflation; however, our teacher, the Rema, refers to where the membranes alone were broken without the flesh, for this is a sign that there is a defect in the membranes, for if the cause were due to the strength of the inflation, the flesh would also have broken [Gloss of R.P.B.].

If there was a sircha on it and it was removed through rubbing, and they inflated it to check, some forbid it when it tore at the time of inflation, for this is a deficiency. And some permit it, for since it was removed through rubbing, the check is only due to a stringency, as will be explained in siman 39. And if so, we say that this which tore now is due to the strength of the inflation, and during its life it was not so inflated [according to Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 2]. For in truth, some say that we should not judge at all from what tore after its slaughter from the magnitude of the inflation regarding the life of the animal, for then the spirit of life assists it, so that even if it were so inflated it would not have torn, and the flesh of the dead is not similar to the flesh of the living [Tevu'ot Shor and Kereti U'Pleti]. Therefore, only when there is a recognizable deficiency must we declare it treif, and not in any other manner. And a proof for this is from what will be explained in siman 37 regarding a bu'a at the edges, which requires a thread of flesh to surround it; and if one inflated with more force and brought up a thread of flesh upon it, it is kosher. And behold, perhaps during its life it was not so inflated? Rather, it is certainly so that its life is not similar to after its slaughter, and during its life it was more inflated because of the spirit of life within it, and nevertheless no damage would occur to it. And from the words of our teacher, the Rema, himself there is proof that it deals with a case where there was some deficiency, for he wrote "if they inflated the lung," and it is known that according to the essential law one should not inflate any lung when there is no deficiency in it, as written in siman 39. And although he wrote there that there are places that are stringent to inflate without a deficiency, nevertheless this is not from the essential law. Therefore, it appears to me that he juxtaposed this law to the law of where the upper membrane was peeled to teach that this law also deals with such a case or another deficiency. And regarding a sircha, it appears to me as the law that if the shochet knows that the sircha was removed easily and gently, and this is a clear sign that this is not a sircha that renders it treif, one should be lenient when it tore during its inflation; but if it was removed with difficulty, one should not be lenient [so it appears to me].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said in Yevamot [76a] regarding a kerut shofkhah that if the organ was perforated, he is disqualified, but when it is closed—meaning they closed the perforation—he is fit; and this is a disqualification that returns to its fitness, to exclude a membrane that arose due to a wound in the lung, which is not a membrane. And so it is found in Chullin [43a] regarding the esophagus, that a membrane that arose due to a wound in the esophagus is not a membrane. And Rashi explained that even if a thick closure arose upon it, it does not endure, for all perforations of tereifot are not benefited by a closure that arises upon them after some time; and it is not similar to a lung that was perforated and the chest wall closes it, nor to the closure of the liver by the gallbladder, nor to the closure of the thighs by the rectum, for that closure is from the beginning. Thus far his words. And it implies that he is stating two reasons: one, because the closure does not endure; and furthermore, since the closure was newly created afterward, it is not effective. However, in truth, it is one reason, for why does the closure not endure? Because the membrane did not previously have existence in the world, and only through the wound was the membrane formed, for it was formed from the moisture of the wound; and if so, its foundation is not a lasting thing and its end is to disintegrate. But the moisture that emerges from the chest wall to close and form an adhesion with the lung, its root is from the chest wall which existed previously; and even though the moisture emerges from the lung, nevertheless its primary attachment is to the chest wall, and therefore it is called a closure. And so too the liver by the gallbladder and the thighs by the rectum [Kereti U-Peleti]. And according to this, the primary reason is because the closure does not endure, and it is impossible for a disqualification to return to its fitness through something that was newly created afterward. But when the closure is through something that existed previously, it is not called returning to its fitness, for the fitness was prepared at the time the perforation was made. And that which our sages, of blessed memory, said [Chullin 68b] that a tereifah, once it has become a tereifah, no longer has a permit—the intention is also thus: when the permit is newly created afterward, because it is impossible that it should be repaired perfectly as I have written; but when the permit was prepared at the time of the tereifah status, the name of tereifah never took effect upon it at all. Even though it still requires time until the perforation is closed, nevertheless such a perforation is not liable to cause the animal to die from this, because it immediately begins little by little to be repaired until it is completely closed with a strong closure [and with this I have fulfilled my obligation regarding that which several of the great Acharonim became entangled in this matter, and delve into it].

A lung in which the sound of a rustle is heard when it is inflated, and this is due to the air that exits from it through some hole—if the place from which the rustle is heard is recognizable, one places saliva or fine straw or the like upon this place. If the saliva or the straw moves, it is known that it is perforated and is treifah. And if the place is not recognizable, one places it in lukewarm water, and in section 5 we explained what is considered lukewarm, see there. And one may put the water in any vessel whatsoever; and even though regarding the examinations for shrinkage it will be explained in section 72 that we require a specific vessel for this, that is because there it must remain in the water for a twenty-four hour period, whereas here for a brief moment we are not concerned with which vessel it is [Tevu'ot Shor, subsection 8]. And some say that even here one requires that vessel which will be explained there [Shach, subsection 7]. And the primary view appears to be like the first opinion. And when they have placed it in the vessel, they inflate it and see: if there is bubbling in the water in any place, it is treifah, and if not, it is kosher, for this is a clear sign that the upper membrane was not perforated and only the lower one alone was perforated, and the air travels between the two membranes, and because of this the sound of a rustle is heard at the time of inflation. And it has already been explained that if this one was perforated without that one, it is kosher.

This examination is mandatory according to the law of the Gemara [47b], and therefore some say that we are not experts in this, just as in every matter of terefah, such as in the case of a shriveled lung where our teacher, the Rema, ruled that we are not experts in the examination [Tevu'ot Shor, and so wrote the Shach in the name of the Agudah]. However, the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who did not note here that we are not experts, explicitly implies that he holds that in this we are experts. It is not similar to the examination of a shriveled lung, which requires leaving the lung in water for twenty-four hours and the essence of the examination is difficult to understand, whereas here, for a brief moment and to see if there is bubbling, even we are experts in this [Shach, subsection 9]. This is also the opinion of several great Acharonim [Levush and Bach, and so it appears from the Taz] and it is also explained in the Yam Shel Shelomo [section 19]. In truth, I do not know what expertise is required in this, and it is simple that in a case of great loss one may rely on our examination.

And specifically in lukewarm water, but in hot or cold water the examination is not effective; and furthermore, even if they only placed it in hot or cold water, no examination is effective for it anymore. And the reason for the matter is that thus the Sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that hot water shrinks the membrane and closes the perforation, and cold water hardens it, meaning that it makes it hard like a stone and through this the perforation will be closed [Ran]. And consequently, what benefit would an examination in lukewarm water provide after the perforation has already been closed by the hot or cold water [and also in the case of a shrunken lung it is so, and it requires further study].

It has already been explained at the end of siman 25 that once slaughtered, it stands in a status of permissibility. Any doubt that occurs to it after it was slaughtered properly—where there is a doubt whether it occurred before slaughter and is treifah, or after slaughter and is kosher—if there is any basis upon which to attribute it, we attribute it to after slaughter. We maintain it upon its status of after its slaughter, for it stood in a status of permissibility. And even if a defect was born in it, it is kosher, for the majority of animals are kosher; therefore, we do not remove it from its status of permissibility. More will be explained regarding this in siman 50 with the help of Heaven.

Therefore, if the lung is found perforated in a place where it can be attributed to having occurred after shechitah, such as if the butcher passed his hand with force or tore it with force, or if a wolf or dog took it and returned it perforated, we attribute it leniently and it is kosher. And it is not only regarding the perforations in the place of its teeth that we are not concerned that perhaps it perforated in the place of a [previous] perforation, but even if there are many perforations not in the place of its teeth, we attribute all of them to the wolf and the dog for the reason we have written, and we say that it bit in this place and bit again in another place. And there is no need to make a perforation in another place and compare the perforations to one another as with worms, which will be explained, where it is necessary to compare; for in this case it is a simple matter that since a wolf or dog took it, it certainly perforated them [Shach, subsection 12]. Furthermore, even if one compared it to another perforation made after shechitah and they do not resemble one another, it is also kosher due to the principle of chazakah that has been explained, and we say that even though both perforations were made after shechitah, it is not necessary that they resemble one another [ibid.]. And there are those who are stringent in such a case [Pri Chadash]. However, when it can be attributed that due to the change in air they do not resemble each other, or due to the handling, as one handled this one more than the second perforation, one should be lenient [Tevu'ot Shor and Pri Megadim].

It is a simple matter that regarding this which we attribute to the butcher passing his hand with force or that he tore it with force, the butcher must know that in the approximate area of this place he passed it or tore it with force, or that he went there with a knife. And similarly in the narrow part of the chest, meaning from the thread that they purge from the chest and upward toward the side of the spine, if the butcher only knows that he inserted his hand and handled in the area of the perforation, we attribute it to the fact that since the place is narrow and he must press his hand there, he perforated it with his fingernail. In this place, he does not need to know that he passed his hand with force, but in other places, he must know that he passed with force or tore with force. And in all of this, he does not need to know with absolute precision that his hand was exactly in the place of the perforation; it is sufficient that he knows his hands went through this area where the perforation is found. And even if a non-Jew removed the lung and they found it perforated in a place where it is customary to handle with force or to pass a knife there, even though it is not certain that the hand of the non-Jew was exactly in the place of the perforation and it is possible he handled adjacent to it, nevertheless we attribute it leniently and say the perforation proves regarding the hands, to say that his hand did all these. And even many perforations we attribute to the handling of the butcher's hand, just as with a wolf.

And this, that we attribute it to a wolf or a dog, is specifically when they took the lung in their mouth; but if they only stood near the lung and we do not know clearly that they took it in their mouth, we do not attribute the punctures to them, and it is terefah due to doubt [ibid.]. And there is one who inclines toward leniency [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 6]. And it appears that everything is according to the matter, for certainly if a person did not stand there near the lung, it is the way of a dog to snatch with its mouth, and when it sees a person coming, it leaves it; but if a person stood there, it is not its way to snatch, and had it snatched it, the person would have noticed. And all this is before the inspection, but after they inspected the lung and no puncture was found in it, it is obvious that we subsequently attribute a found puncture even to a remote possibility. And know that there is one who wishes to say that for us, who are stringent when the lung is lost without inspection when it is not a case of great loss, as written in siman 39, the same applies that we are stringent when a wolf or a dog took it. But the great authorities rejected this matter, for the opinion of the one who is stringent is that we fear there was some sirka and the dog removed it, and in truth, it is not the way of animals to remove a sirka such that there would not remain some slight shred [Tevuat Shor].

If a non-Jew took the lung and went with it and afterward returned it and punctures were found in it, if they had previously checked the lung and it was found to be sound, we certainly attribute it to him, that he made the punctures. But if they had not yet checked it, the opinion of most of the great later authorities is to be stringent and not to attribute it to him, for why should he make punctures? And if it is known that it was punctured but we did not know how many punctures he made, we attribute all the punctures to him [Siman 348]. And one of the great poskim ruled that we attribute it to the non-Jew in any case since he took the lung [Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham], and they rejected his words as I have written. And one of the great later authorities wrote that the law is with him, for if not so, the intestines that we sell to a non-Jew which do not require checking—according to the opinion of those who are stringent, when he comes the next day and shows them before us punctured, he would forbid the animal. And we have never heard this, for after it left our hand into his hand and he went with it, it is not within his power to forbid it to us, and we say that he did it intentionally to forbid it to us [Kereti U-Peleti, subsection 5]. However, this is not a comparison, for certainly when we sold it to him and he went with them to his house, we no longer have any involvement with him. And this can only be with intestines, for it is forbidden to sell a lung before the checking. And that which we wrote, that we do not attribute it to the non-Jew, this is when that non-Jew did not purchase it, but only took it for a brief moment and returned it. In this, we certainly should not attribute it to him, for why should he make the punctures? Unless there is an assessment that he did it intentionally, for then there is grounds to permit it; but without this, there is no grounds to permit it [and so appears to be the opinion of the Beit Ephraim, subsection 41].

That which we have validated the hole when there is something to attribute it to, as has been written, even if the hole was found in a bubble or in another blemish that would not require inspection if the hole were not there, we also attribute it and we do not say that it is a double blemish, because this hole is not a blemish at all since we attribute that it was made after the shechitah. However, if it was found in a place of a sircha, even if it passes through massaging, or if it was found near it in a manner that requires inspection, it is treifah, for in the place of the hole it is impossible to inspect [Siman 38]. And there are those who validate, for even though it is impossible to inspect in the place of the hole, nevertheless, since the inspection is only a stringency, as will be explained in Siman 39, it is not a hindrance when it is impossible to inspect [Pri Megadim and Givat Shaul and Levushai Serad subsection 34]. And it is simple that in a case of great loss or for a great need one may rely on this. However, in a hanging sircha or in a sircha according to their order, even the first opinion admits that one should validate [ibid.].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that we do not attribute it to the hand of the butcher unless the perforation is elongated, as is the way for it to be caused by the butcher; but if it is round, we do not attribute it to the butcher, for it is not its way to be round. And any perforation that is open, or where it has blackened or is red around the perforation—and even if it is only red around the ribs opposite the perforation—it is treifah, and we do not attribute it to anything, for it was certainly made during life. Thus far his words. And according to this, it is proper to examine the ribs, for whatever can be clarified, we clarify [Beit Yosef]. And that which he wrote, "when the perforation is open," his intention is that there is a deficiency in the perforation; and even if the skin of the lung of the perforation that has a deficiency is hanging over the perforation, we do not say that it was certainly made after slaughter, for had it been during life the skin would have been completely consumed, as this is not clear proof [Simlah Chadashah section 40]. And so too when we attribute it to a wolf, or a dog, or a knife, the perforation must be in the manner that it is possible to be made by them [ibid.], and this depends on the sight of the eyes of the experts.

And that which has been explained, that with redness around the hole it is terefah, there are some among the examiners who say that if it is a bit red in the place of the hole itself and it is soft and redness also emerges from it, we attribute it to something that can be attributed; for specifically when it is red around it over a large area and is somewhat hard like the appearance of redness of a wound in a person, this is a sign that it occurred during life. However, a bit of red in the place of the hole, such is its way even when it occurs after shechitah, and this is due to the blood of the lung that is stirred to emerge. And one who is well-versed in visual appearance may rely on this [ibid.]. And know that in any place where we have said that this hole occurred during life, it does not help even if another hole is made and they appear exactly like one another, for this only helps in a case of doubt whether it occurred during life; but when it is clearly seen that it occurred during life, this does not help [Shach subsection 13].

It is stated in the Gemara [49a]: Regarding a worm, Rava and Ravina disagree; one says it separated before shechitah and one says it separated after shechitah, and the halakhah is that it separated after shechitah. Its explanation is a worm that emerges from the lung and perforated it [Rashi]. And so wrote the Rambam in chapter 7, law 15, and this is his wording: A worm that was in the lung and perforated it and emerged, and behold the lung is perforated by the worm, this is permitted; its presumption is that after shechitah it would perforate and emerge. Thus far his words. And the reason is because we say that when the worm felt that the natural heat ceased upon the death of the animal, it pushed to emerge to seek warmth and perforated; or it is possible to say that while the animal is alive, it is impossible for the worm to perforate due to the activity of the lung which always flutters without cessation [Beit Yosef in the name of the Kol Bo]. And from the language of the Rambam it is implied that the worm is resting in the perforation of the lung or at least it is adjacent to the perforation. And some say that specifically when the worm is resting in the perforation [Maharshal and Bach and Taz, subsection 8]. And it must be said that they would explain that which the Rambam wrote, "and emerged," that it did not emerge completely, but rather it began to emerge. And their reason is that if not so, who is the prophet who told us that the perforation came from the worm [Bach]?

And there are those who disagree with all of this and hold that even if the worms are far from the hole, if they are merely found on the lung it is kosher, for since there are worms on the lung, there is clear proof that the holes came about by means of a morna; also, it is not necessary to be exacting that as many worms be found as the number of holes [Shach subsection 16, and Maharimal, and Pri Chadash]. And according to their words, that which the Rambam wrote, "and behold the lung is perforated by a worm," must be explained to mean that since there are worms on the lung, it is certain that the hole is from the worm and there is no doubt in this, and we do not attribute the hole to another matter. And the reason is that in most lungs it is not common at all for holes to be found, but rather sirchot; therefore, when we see holes and we see worms on the lung, we attribute this to that. And it appears to me that if according to the recognition of the experts they recognize that these worms, in their appearance and size, are found inside the lung occasionally, even the first opinion admits that we attribute this to that.

And from the language of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 5, it is implied like the opinion of those who disagree, for they wrote: And so too if worms were found upon it that punctured it, and it is not known if they punctured it before slaughter or after slaughter, it is kosher. Thus far their words. And the language "found upon it" clearly explains that their intention is that they were found on the lung in any place whatsoever. And according to all the opinions that have been explained, when no worms at all were found on the lung, it is simple that it is forbidden, and one should not rely on the recognition of the examiners who say that they recognize that they are punctures of the murna. [And see the Bach, who wished to make a distinction between the words of the Rambam and the words of the Tur, but it is not at all compelling, as is explained by all the Acharonim who did not speak of this; and his words are not understood, for what is the practical difference, as the Levush wrote in subsection 39, and all that they wrote on this is not sufficient; and also the Shach in subsection 15 only wrote "seemingly," see there, and in truth there is no practical difference between them].

And know that our teacher, the Rema, in his book Darkhei Moshe, letter 3, brought that Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah required placing the lung in the sun; if more worms emerged, it is kosher, and if not, it is treifah. The explanation of his words: when worms are found on the lung and the perforations are attributed to the worms, and more worms are found inside the lung, one does not declare it kosher unless they place it in the sun. And if the remaining worms seek the warmth of the sun and emerge, this is a sign that those on the lung also emerged and perforated after the shechitah to seek warmth. But if these do not emerge, it is a sign that those on the lung also did not emerge after the shechitah. However, the rest of the poskim did not require this, and it is kosher in any case, and therefore he did not bring this at all in the Shulchan Arukh.

But there are some of the poskim who interpreted the words of our teacher, the Gershom Meor HaGolah, in a different manner and toward leniency, and that he is not speaking at all of a case where worms were found upon it, for in such a case it is obvious that it is kosher. On the contrary, our teacher, the Gershom Meor HaGolah, informs us of a great leniency: that when perforations were found in the lung and worms were not found upon it, but the perforations are recognizable as being from the perforations of the morga, they should place the lung in the sun. And if due to the heat of the sun some worms swarm from within the lung to the outside, it is a sign that these perforations also came from worms that exited after the shechitah and the worms were lost through the handling of hands; and if not, it is treifah [Shach subsection 18 and Pri Chadash]. And there is one who objected to this, that there is no proof from this at all, for the shining of the sun gives power to creeping things and worms to creep, and without the sun they are like dead carcasses and have no power to creep, and there is no proof that previously they exited to the outside after the shechitah [Kereiti U-Pleiti]. And this is no objection at all, for certainly it is true that the sun gives them power to creep, but it is clear that their natural vitality was stronger during the life of the animal in the natural heat of the animal, and it is a necessity that when they felt the cessation of the natural heat, they began to seek life after the manner of all living creatures that flee from a place of harm; and there are strong ones that exited and there are weak ones that remained inside them, and now when the sun shines upon them, they attained power [and that which he said, how can we create a distant dispute, I wonder, for this is dependent on that, and examine it well].

And there is a proof for this from the words of the Bahag, who wrote: A lung that has a worm in it, we examine if they come out and crawl, it is kosher; and if not, we hang the lung in the sun, if when the lung is warm the worm comes out, it is kosher, and if it does not come out, it is treifah. And where after the animal was slaughtered a worm was found that punctured the lung or the stomach, it was after slaughtering that it punctured and it is kosher, and such is the halacha. Thus far his words. And his words are repetitive and not understood, and according to what I wrote, this is the explanation: that first he says a lung that has worms in it, meaning inside the lung, and on the lung nothing was found, and therefore it is necessary to test that those inside should come out, and if not, it is treifah. And afterwards he says, "And where after the animal was slaughtered a worm was found that punctured the lung etc.," meaning that the worm was found upon the lung, then there is no need for the sun test and it is kosher in any case, and so we maintain. [And see Shach subsection 18 who brought the beginning of the words of the Bahag and did not bring his end, for from this there is more proof, since on the beginning of his words a disputant has grounds to disagree and explain it as our teacher, the Rema, explained in Darkei Moshe the words of Rabbeinu Gershom Meor HaGolah; however, from the end of his words it is explicitly proven as I wrote, and examine it closely].

And that which the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot wrote, "we shall see if they emerge and crawl it is kosher," which implies that it is possible they would emerge outside even without inspection by the sun or a warm place, it appears to me that his intention is this: that by inflating it forcefully, the worms will begin to emerge from within the lung. And this is proof for what one of the expert inspectors wrote, which he received from his teachers, that if there are holes of a morna in the lung and the morna is not visible, one should inflate the lung well and the morna will emerge from the lung [Tevuot Shor subsection 27 in the name of Zera Yitzchak, see there]. And it is a simple matter that in the winter, when the air is cold and it is impossible to place it in the sun, they should place it near a warm oven, for what difference is there to me between the heat of the sun or other warmth.

One of the great authorities further wrote that there was an incident in Poznań regarding a perforation where nothing was found, and they cut the location of the perforation from its beginning to its end until they found a worm there, and they declared it kosher based on a tradition from the Gaon, our teacher, the Mahar"n of Grodno, who ruled so there. He attributed it to saying that another worm made the perforation and went away, and the worm that was found did not have the strength to exit. There is no implication in any posek to be so lenient; however, it can be said that the inspectors who were there were experts, for in that place this matter is common, and they also recognized the perforations of the morna, but they did not rely on recognition alone. When they found the morna, they attributed it to what is common, since there is a morna known to them by nature that is liable to perforate and exit [Tevu'ot Shor there]. And even according to this custom, it is specifically when the worm is found in the depth of the lung corresponding to the perforation; but if there is no perforation there, and only when one cuts into the lung from there and further is a worm found there, it is of no avail [Beit Ephraim section 59]. And Heaven forbid to practice so in any place unless they know and recognize and are experts that this is common there [And it appears to me that this is why the Sages, of blessed memory, left their words unexplained and said "they disagree regarding a morna etc." and did not say "a morna on the lung" or "a morna in a perforation" or "a morna in the lung," and such an unexplained law is not found in the Gemara except because it has several aspects. The primary law is as I wrote in section 30, and in a place where they know and recognize and have a tradition to instruct like the incident in Poznań, one should not protest against them, as the Tevu'ot Shor wrote in section 27 and the Beit Ephraim there].

It is a simple matter that a lung upon which or within which worms are found, the entire lung is forbidden for eating because it is established as having worms, and certainly it is impossible to sort out the worms because they are many. And if only three worms were found, it is forbidden. And it is not only necessary to say if they came from the outside, but even if they were formed from it, they are forbidden as an ever min hachai, as the Sages, of blessed memory, said [at the end of the chapter "Elu Terefot"] and as will be explained in siman 84, for it is not similar to all other things like worms from cheeses and vinegar; for since regarding an animal the matter depends upon shechitah, and for them shechitah is not applicable, they are consequently forbidden by the prohibition of ever min hachai. And it is possible that even to a non-Jew one should not sell it, and it requires further study.

There is one who says that only regarding the lung is the law thus, but in the rumen, the intestines, and the gizzard, when a perforation is found and a worm is found upon it, we do not say that it emerged after shechitah [Bach]. Others disagreed with him, for in all organs the law is thus, except for the brain, as was written in siman 31, and as is explicitly clear from the words of the Bahag that we brought in section 31 [Shach subsection 17 and Pri Chadash]. And there is one who wrote that one should not act in practice to permit them [Pri Megadim there]. I do not know why, since in the Bahag it is explicitly stated so, and from this it is proven that the first reason we wrote in section 26 is the primary one, for according to the second reason, this would only apply to the lung alone; see there.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [50a]: We compare with the intestines and with the lung. That is to say, if a perforation is found in them and there is nothing to attribute it to, and the matter is in doubt whether it occurred before slaughter or after slaughter, we perforate another hole next to it and see if their appearances are identical; it is kosher, for it is known that it occurred after slaughter [Rashi]. And from the law, even from this garden-bed to that garden-bed, and only from a small animal to a small animal and from a large animal to a large animal, but not from a small animal to a large animal nor from a large animal to a small animal. That is to say, from a lobe to a lobe and from a large lobe to a large lobe, but not from a lobe to a large lobe nor from a large lobe to a lobe [ibid.]. However, the Rif and the Rambam in chapter 7 interpret "large" and "small" according to their plain meaning, and that is that one may compare even from this animal to another animal, provided it is from a small animal to a small animal, and likewise from a large animal to a large animal, but not from a large animal to a small animal or from a small animal to a large animal. Rashi, of blessed memory, also brought this interpretation and wrote that one should not be so lenient, see there. However, for us there is no practical difference in this, for our teacher, the Rema, and all the great Acharonim have already written that nowadays we are not experts in this, and one should not rely on comparison at all to declare it kosher [and the Shach, subsection 19, wrote that where there is some other side for permission one should be lenient even in this time, but the Acharonim disagree on this as we are not experts at all, and only to be stringent should one be concerned for our recognition, according to the Pri Megadim there].

It has already been explained in section 25 that when it is recognizable that the perforation was made during life, no sign is effective. This is also the law regarding a morna, except in the case of an open perforation, where it was explained there that a sign is not effective; however, regarding a morna this is not applicable, for it is the way of a morna to be open [siman 348, section 16]. Likewise, regarding what was explained there concerning redness, in the perforations of a morna, on the contrary, it is its way to be red and soft around it [Levushei Serad, subsection 43]. It is a simple matter that as long as the perforation does not resemble the perforations of a morna, one may not permit it. If so, specifically redness is a sign for the perforations of a morna; yet it is possible that the rednesses do not resemble one another, as I have also written there regarding this matter. However, if there is redness on the ribs opposite them, one may not permit it, and it is proper to examine the ribs opposite it [Pri Megadim]. And as we said in section 23, that even if there is an additional flaw it is kosher when it can be attributed to the handling of the hand or to a dog, so too regarding a morna, for they have one law [Olat Shabbat, subsection 44].

In the lung there are bronchi, which are like hollow tubes, and if one of the bronchi of the lung was perforated internally into its fellow bronchus—that is, in the place where they branch off from one another and there is no flesh between them—it is treifah, for its fellow is hard and does not protect it. And all the more so if its fellow was also perforated opposite it, even though everything that exits from this perforation immediately enters the second perforation and does not go between the bronchi at all, and the second perforation has the sealing of the lung flesh, nevertheless it is treifah, since for this perforation there is nothing to seal it. But if it was perforated at a distance from the branching into the lung flesh, it is kosher, for the flesh is soft and enters into the perforation and seals it. And if there is no flesh over the perforation even though there is on its sides and opposite it, or if the flesh over the perforation is defective, this is not a sealing and it is treifah [Siman 34, section 17]. And likewise, if the bronchus was perforated above, before it spreads into the lung flesh, and there is no flesh over it, only the lung membrane spread over it, it is also treifah [Levush]. And likewise, if a needle is found stuck from the bronchus into the flesh, it is treifah [Pri Megadim in the name of Knesset HaGedolah], for according to how it is found now, there is no protection for the perforation of the bronchus [and that which according to the law of the Gemara a needle in the lung is kosher, that is when it is found entirely in the flesh; and even though it passed through the bronchus, nevertheless this is nothing, for it exited immediately and the perforation was sealed like a sircha in its order, but when it is found stuck from the bronchus to the flesh it is treifah, and so wrote the Acharonim].

And know that this which has been explained, that when the simpon is perforated into the flesh it is kosher, this is the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch and all the Rishonim, as is explicitly proven in the Gemara [48b]. And the words of the Rambam in this matter require study, for he wrote in chapter 7: If one of the simponim of the lung was perforated, even into its fellow, it is terefah. Thus far his words. For it is implied from his words that certainly into the flesh it is so, and these are astonishing matters, for on the contrary, into the flesh it is kosher. And already the Tur and all the Rishonim were astonished by him, and many things were said regarding this [see Beit Yosef, Bach, and Taz]. And the clearest of what they answered is that this is what he meant to say: It is not only necessary to say if it was perforated above, before its spreading into the flesh, where there is nothing over it but the membrane of the lung, that certainly there is nothing to protect it, but even into its fellow it is also terefah because the simpon is hard; however, in a case of perforation into the flesh, he admits that it is kosher [Taz subsection 9, and Lechem Mishneh there, and Kereti U-Peleti]. And this is the opinion of most of the poskim, that the Rambam also admits that into the flesh it is kosher. And there is one who asked that if so, why did he not write that into the flesh it is kosher [Bach]? And it can be said that this too is explained in his words, for he wrote there further on: A needle that was found in the lung, one inflates it; if air does not exit from it, it is known that it entered by way of the simponim and did not perforate. Thus far his words. And behold, it is found now in the flesh, and perforce it exited from the simpon into the flesh and perforated there, and this is as explicitly explained that into the flesh it is kosher. And one should not ask why we should not fear that it perforated from simpon to simpon and from there exited into the flesh, for this is no question, as we do not establish a presumption of a defect [Rashi ibid.].

And it appears to me to add further to this, for indeed I have a difficulty regarding the essence of this law that was explained, that its fellow does not protect the perforation but the flesh protects, because the simpon is hard and the flesh is soft. We see from this that soft upon hard is more tightly pressed than hard upon hard. Yet in the Gemara in Shabbat [57a] it is proven regarding the matter of chatzitzah in immersion that hard upon hard is more of an intervention than soft upon hard [see there in Tosafot s.v. "Hashta Kasheh"], implying that hard upon hard is more tightly pressed than soft upon hard. And it is necessary to distinguish and say that it is different here, for the flesh enters into the perforation and plugs it. However, the main point appears to me to be that it is known regarding all sinews that as they go further their strength weakens and they resemble flesh, as will be explained in siman 56 regarding the tzomet hagidim. And so it appears that this is the reasoning of the Rambam regarding the simponi of the lung, for there the name simpon only applies at its beginning and when they are connected to one another; but when they go further and separate from one another, their hardness weakens and they are similar in their softness to flesh, and it is not relevant to say of it that the simpon was perforated, for it is exactly like flesh. Therefore, regarding a needle, when it traveled through the simpon, it presumably traveled in its usual way until the place where they separate from one another and it was thrust into the flesh. Therefore, the Rambam spoke well [when he said] "even to its fellow," meaning, it is not necessary [to state] if it perforated above as I wrote in the previous section, and if it perforated into the flesh he did not need to mention it, for there it is not a simpon but like flesh. And this law is explained regarding a needle as I have written [so it appears to me].

We hold that a deficiency from within is not called a deficiency [47b], and there is no difference between whether it was created thus deficient from within or whether it became deficient through illness [Bach]. Therefore, our sages of blessed memory said [ibid.] that a lung that was poured out like a jug is kosher—meaning, that the flesh of the lung dissolved within its membranes and was poured from its top to its bottom and from its bottom to its top within the membranes. And it is a deficiency, for initially it was entirely full and now half of it is empty [Rashi], and the membrane remains and is healthy and good and rises during inflation as is proper. And even if only the upper membrane remains, as is proven from the words of the Rambam [Chapter 7, Halacha 9] and the Shulchan Aruch, section 7; see there.

And specifically that the simponot were not ruined, meaning that they remain in their place and have not dissolved; but if even one simpon is dissolved, it is treifah. And how do we examine it? One punctures it and pours it into a vessel that is glazed with lead, for it is smooth and everything is seen clearly, or a similar clean and white vessel. If white threads are seen in it, it is known that the simponot have dissolved and it is treifah. And if not, it is only the flesh of the lung that has dissolved and it is kosher [ibid.]. And we do not fear that perhaps one simpon was punctured and another simpon does not protect as I wrote in section 38, and also the flesh of the lung does not protect since it has dissolved and become water; for if you were to think that the simponot were punctured or even one of them, they would have dissolved and been seen in the vessel after the ruin reached the simpon. Rather, certainly the simponot are intact [Ran]. And one should not rely nowadays on this examination except in a case of great loss and great need, and with the gathering of all the experts [Simlah Chadashah].

The Tur wrote, and this is his wording: The Rif explained specifically that the discharge of the water must be clear, but if they are turbid or foul-smelling, it is treifah. The Rambam wrote similarly. But my father, the Rosh, permits even in turbid and foul-smelling cases. Thus far his words. Based on this, the two opinions were brought in the Shulchan Aruch, section 7. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that one who is expert in examining to ensure that the bronchi have not dissolved may rely on them in a case of great financial loss. Thus far his words. In truth, it is not found at all in the Rif and the Rambam regarding this law that if they are turbid or foul-smelling it is treifah; rather, the Tur only derived this from their words where they wrote concerning blisters that in turbid and foul-smelling cases it is treifah, as written in siman 37. From this, the Tur derived that in their opinion the law is the same here as well, but the rest of the early poskim did not mention this matter.

And in truth I am astonished, for if it should enter your mind that this law also applies to "spilled like a pitcher," why did the Rif and the Rambam not mention in this law that the dissolution must be clear? For behold, the laws of bubbles were written by the Rif at a distance from the law of "spilled like a pitcher." And even the Rambam, who placed them adjacent to one another, did he not mention this law of "spilled like a pitcher" before the laws of bubbles? And how could he rely in this on what he would write afterward without any disclosure of the matter? Furthermore, for behold, in the Gemara it is explicitly proven that bubbles are much worse than "spilled like a pitcher," for regarding bubbles they said there [48a] that Rabbi Yochanan would not rule a permit regarding them, see there, and the master of the teaching of "spilled like a pitcher" is Rabbi Yochanan. And the reason was written by the Rashba [ibid.], and this is his wording: For a lung that is "spilled like a pitcher" has no concern of a perforation, and it is from within that its flesh has dissolved, etc., and on account of a perforation there is no concern, for its skin was not afflicted at all; but growths, which are due to fluid that collects between the skin and the flesh and spoils there and becomes pus, it is a very near thing that the skin was perforated by this, and even though it appears whole and rises during inflation, it is a crust that has risen upon it. Thus far his words. And how did the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch learn this from that? And also, the source of the law of the Rif and the Rambam regarding bubbles is from the Gemara [55b] regarding the lung and the kidney, and there regarding bubbles it deals as Rashi explained there. Furthermore, in Sukkah [36a] where the sages desired to learn the law regarding an etrog that is "spilled like a pitcher" from the law of a lung that is "spilled like a pitcher," and it is explained there explicitly that it deals with those that are foul, see there [at least as the Maharam Shif questioned]. And this is regarding the membranes, and regarding the bronchi it is the opposite, and it will be explained in siman 37.

And know that in the Gemara there it is stated: a lung that has dissolved but its membrane is intact, even if it holds a revi'it, it is kosher, see there. And the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch omitted this law, and it appears clear that their reason is that this is the very same law as "poured out like a jug," for what difference does it make to me if it was poured out like a jug or if it dissolved and the place was completely emptied and the place remained hollow [as Rashi explained, see there], for the main thing is the membrane, and since the membrane is intact, it is kosher. However, the Rif and the Tur wrote both laws, see there. And I wonder at our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who in his great book brought in the name of an early authority that specifically when the cavity does not hold more than a revi'it, but more than a revi'it it is treifah. And if so, this law is different from "poured out like a jug," for there even if all of it was poured out like a jug it is kosher, and here it is only up to a revi'it. And if so, why did he not write this in the Shulchan Aruch? And our teacher, the Rema, wrote this in section 8, that with more than a revi'it it is treifah. And it appears to me that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not agree to this in practice, just as indeed the great later authorities [the Taz and Pri Chadash and Kereti U-Pleti] disagreed with this. And behold, from the words of the Rambam there is clear proof that he rules it kosher even with more than a revi'it, since he omitted it entirely and equated this with "poured out like a jug." And also the opinion of the Tur appears so, since he did not write that with more than a revi'it it is treifah, and if he had held so, he would not have omitted mentioning this, and none of the early authorities mentioned this matter. Therefore, in a case of great loss, one should be lenient.

All that has been explained is when the deficiency is only from the inside, and from the outside it is equal to other lungs when they are inflated and there is no deficiency in it from the outside. But when there is a deficiency in it from the outside, there are divided opinions in this matter. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8: If it is missing from the body of the lung and was not perforated, it is kosher; and there is one who forbids. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And the custom is to permit if the deficiency is like a flat palm, but if the deficiency is like a curved palm, if one can place a thumb into that cavity, it is called a deficiency and is treifah, and if not, it is kosher, etc. Thus far his words. And most of the great authorities cried out like a crane against this, for what distinction is there between curved and flat? And they permit in every case [Yam Shel Shelomo siman 41, and Shach subsection 24, and Taz subsection 13, and Pri Chadash].

And also regarding what was written that there is one who forbids in a case of deficiency, this is the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 8, law 7, who wrote, and this is his wording: If it is found to be entirely two rows and it does not have the cutting of the "ears," it is treifah; and similarly if the body of the lung is deficient, even though it was not perforated, this is like a deficiency in the number of the lobes and it is treifah; therefore, if a dry spot is found upon it to the extent that it crumbles with a fingernail, this is like a deficiency and it is treifah, and even if it was any amount. Thus far his words. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch and all the poskim understood that what he wrote, "and similarly if the body of the lung is deficient," his intention was regarding a deficiency from the outside, such as a groove or a wrinkle and the like. But in truth, it appears more likely that this is what he meant: just as with a deficiency of the "ears," which are the lobes, it is treifah, so too if the body of the lung is deficient—meaning, if the umah, which is the body of the lung, is deficient such that it has only one umah, it is also treifah; for even though Rava only said in the Gemara that a deficiency of a lobe is treifah, nevertheless it is an a fortiori argument for a deficiency of an umah, and everything is included in what we learned in the Mishnah, "or if it was deficient." And this is what he says, "this is like a deficiency in the number of the lobes," meaning that a deficiency of an umah is like a deficiency of a lobe. And he says further, "therefore, if a dry spot is found upon it etc. and even if it was any amount"—the explanation of his words is that in the Gemara [46b] it is stated: Rava said, a lung that dried in part is treifah. And behold, it can be explained that the reason for the treifah status of dryness is due to perforation, for that which is dry is destined to be perforated; however, if so, why was it necessary to say "in part"? It is obvious that a perforation of any amount is treifah. Therefore, the Rambam explains that the reason for the treifah status of dryness is because of deficiency. Therefore, I would have said that just as with an actual deficiency it is not treifah except in the case of a deficiency of a lobe or an umah and not in a deficiency of a part of them, so too with dryness; he comes to teach us that dryness is worse because it is destined to dry entirely. And according to this, the Rambam also holds like all the poskim that a deficiency from the outside is kosher [see the book Tiferet Yisrael, subsection 5, who explained his intention thus; and see the Kesef Mishneh who exerted much effort to answer the difficulty of the Tosafot 47b s.v. "aval," who challenged those who forbid a wrinkle, a crack, or a deficiency on the lung: why did he need to establish it according to Rabbi Shimon, let him establish it according to everyone, see there; and this is according to his understanding that the Rambam stands by the system of those who forbid, but according to our words he does not hold so; and as for why he did not answer there that it deals with a deficiency of a lobe or an umah, as is the truth of the explanation of the Mishnah "or if it was deficient" as the Rambam himself wrote in the Commentary on the Mishnah and also the Bartenura—we have already answered this with the help of Heaven in siman 35, section 3, see there; and the Tiferet Yisrael also exerted effort in this, see there; and in my humble opinion the matter is simple as I wrote there, and delve into it].

And according to this, since all our teachers, the Rishonim and the Acharonim, maintain the primary halachic ruling that a deficiency from the outside is nothing, and when there is a crack or a wrinkle in the lung or some deficiency, such as where in one place the skin of the lung is lower than the rest of the lung, and since it rises during inflation and does not leak, we have no concern with it. And there were only those who were concerned for the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, who forbids in such a case, but after we have clarified with the help of Heaven that the Rambam also maintains this, there is no opinion at all to forbid. Therefore, it appears to me that regarding what several of the great authorities wrote—that when there is an additional defect in the wrinkle or the crack and the like, such as a sircha or a bu'a, we judge it as "two defects" as is explained in their books—this was all according to what they understood of the words of the Rambam, that his opinion is to declare it treifa in a case of deficiency from the outside, according to the principles they established regarding the matter of "two defects," that when there is one opinion to declare it treifa, even though we do not rule like him, nevertheless it joins to form "two defects." However, according to what we have clarified, behold there is no opinion at all to forbid in this. And there are those who wish to say even regarding a deficiency from the inside, which all agree is kosher, that if there is an additional defect on the membrane such as a bu'a or a sircha and the like, it would be "two defects." But this does not seem correct at all, for since the lung is whole and good from the outside, what do we care about a deficiency that is on the inside? And there is proof from the words of our teacher, the Rema, himself, who was stringent regarding a deficiency from the outside if it is like a bent spoon as he wrote; nevertheless, he wrote in siman 37, section 3, that a bu'a on a groove or a wrinkle is treifa because it is like two bu'ot that are adjacent, see there. Behold, he declared it treifa for this reason and not for the reason of "two defects." [See Levushai Serad, subsection 60, who also wrote that a wrinkle is not a defect and brought proof from this, see there; and he wrote similarly in subsection 57 regarding a deficiency from the inside with a deficiency from the outside, that it is not "two defects" for two reasons: one, that a deficiency from the inside is not a defect at all, and furthermore, that the membranes separate between the two defects, see there].

And behold, that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote to distinguish between a bent lobe and a straight lobe, there is no reason for this, what is the difference between one and the other? And in his book Darkhei Moshe, letter 5, he brought from the Bedikot of Mahariw to distinguish between a bent lobe and a straight one, that a bent one is called a deficiency. And from the Bedikot Yeshanim he brought that if the deficiency is such that one can insert a thumb into it, it is called a deficiency and is treifah, and less than this it is kosher, and there is no distinction in this between an una and an uma, nor between the bottom or the top. Thus far his words. And in the Shulchan Arukh he wrote according to the custom to require both: a bent lobe and the insertion of a thumb on all three sides [Levushei Serad, subsection 63]. For since according to the essential law it is kosher in all manners, therefore he did not see fit to be stringent except when both are joined together. And in a case of great loss, one who is lenient even with a bent lobe has not lost [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 23], even if the deficiency contains a thumb or more. And there is one who decided that where it is recognizable that this is from the beginning of its creation, it is kosher in any case in a case of great loss; but regarding wrinkles that were made through illness, one should forbid in a bent lobe even in a case of great loss [Levushei Serad, subsection 65]. And the experts know how to recognize between a wrinkle that comes from its birth and a wrinkle that was made due to some affliction or illness [ibid., subsection 60]. And when it is made at its birth, it should not be joined to any "twofold disadvantage," but it is not so when it is made due to illness [ibid.]. Furthermore, they wrote that even in a bent lobe, if one side is longer than its fellow, it is kosher, for since that side began to heal, the second will also heal [Taz, subsection 13]. And in siman 39 it will be explained that if the wrinkle is due to a sircha that wrinkled the flesh of the lung and it does not rise well during inflation, it is treifah, and there this specific law will be explained with the help of Heaven.

It appears to me to provide a reason for this custom to distinguish between a bent spoon and a straight one, for this was also established based on what they understood from the words of the Rambam that a deficiency from the outside is treifah. For behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, raised a difficulty against the Rambam: how could he disqualify it in a case where it is deficient even though it was not perforated, given that in a case where it is dissolved we declare it kosher even if the deficiency holds a revi'it? Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that after it has been emptied from the inside, it is almost necessary that the volume of the lung in the place of its deficiency will collapse and appear like a deficiency from the outside; for even though it is possible through inflation that the skin will stand in its place like the manner of inflated skins, nevertheless, it is certainly also likely that through its internal deficiency the skin does not support itself properly. And he answered that a case that is not dissolved is worse than a case that is dissolved, see there where he answered with difficulty. Therefore, the proponents of this view hold that it can certainly be so, that through the internal emptying it appears like a deficiency from the outside. Therefore, if the deficiency from the outside is in one place like a circle or a square or length or width, we indeed say so, that this is not a deficiency from the outside but rather a deficiency from the inside, and through this, even from the outside it does not rise properly. But when the deficiency is from three sides like a bent spoon, and in the middle of the spoon it rises properly during inflation, if you were to think that the cause is because of the internal deficiency, why did it rise in the middle properly? For it is simple that if these three sides were emptied from the inside, the interior within them, which is the middle, was also emptied, as is understood. Rather, it is certain that this is not because of the internal deficiency. And all the more so if the deficiency is like a closed mem and the middle rises properly during inflation, that it is also treifah. But like a straight spoon, which is only length and width without continuation, we say that here it was emptied from the inside and not in another place. [This appears to me to be the reason for this custom.]

And know that there are those who wrote other reasons for the distinction between bent and straight: there is one who wrote that when the damage is like a bent palm it will no longer heal [Tevuat Shor subsection 48]; and there is one who wrote the reason that this shape is considered a redundancy, and according to this, this is only in the lobes, but in the sub-lobes it is a redundancy in the rows of the lobes and is kosher [Be'er Heitev subsection 19 in the name of Dammeshek Eliezer]; and there are those who wrote that this is only in the area of the slopes of the lung, for when it is there like a bent palm and at a depth and width of a thumb, the bronchi have been damaged [Bach and the Tevuat Shor subsection 46 in the name of the Ritz]; and there is one who wrote a reason according to the hidden wisdom [Beit Ephraim subsection 101 in the name of Megalleh Amukot]; and in my humble opinion the primary reason is as we have written.

The Tur wrote: A lung in which an incident occurred where they inflated it and there remained in it an opaque spot that does not rise during inflation, they tear the opaque spot; if phlegm is found in it, it is kosher, for it was blocked because of the phlegm. And if phlegm is not found in it, they place a straw or a feather upon it and inflate it; if it flickers, it is kosher, for the air has reached there, and if not, it is terefah. But one need not be concerned for this as long as they have not inflated it. Thus far his words. His intention is clear: that regarding an ordinary lung, as long as we have not seen any defect in it, one need not inflate it at all. Therefore he wrote, "when an incident occurred where they inflated it," meaning that we saw some defect in it, and through the inflation, the defect of opacity also became visible to us [Beit Yosef]. And in siman 39 this will be further explained with the help of Heaven. And the reason for the terefah status of an opaque spot is because the lung flutters and fans the heart, and if it is opaque, it cannot bring in air and fan [Rashba in Torat HaBayit]. And the Rambam in chapter 7 wrote that this is because it is like a perforated lung, and according to this, even in any amount it is terefah [Bach]. And Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote [47b] that it is a decay, see there, and his intention is also like the Rambam, of blessed memory, that this is like a perforation [as Rashi wrote 43a s.v. lo tipok]. And there is one who made the opinion of Rashi into a third opinion [47, subsection 15], but it is not so, and so wrote the great later authorities [Tevuat Shor and Lechem HaPanim].

Some say there is a practical legal difference between the two reasons. For according to the reason that it cannot expand over the heart, and the treifut is due to the heart, this does not combine for "two flaws" (tertei lereiuta), such as when there is a sircha on the atum or similar cases. This is because the flaws are not equal, as this one testifies regarding the heart and that one regarding the lung. However, according to the reason of a perforation, it does combine for "two flaws." Conversely, there is a leniency when it is due to the reason of a perforation, such as when the atum is against the wall in the narrow part of the chest; for even if it were perforated there, we hold in siman 39 that a lung which is perforated and the wall seals it is kosher. And even though we are stringent there, that is merely a stringency, as will be explained there. But according to the reason of the expansion of the heart, it is treifa even there. Certainly, one must be stringent like both views [Pri Megadim there]. However, when there is an atum in the narrow part of the chest and it bubbles in a manner that it is kosher despite the atum, and there is another flaw upon the atum, one should rule it kosher [Levushei Serad, subsection 76], for in this case, according to both reasons, there is no treifut here, as is understood.

There are those who say that an obstruction is only considered as such when it is obstructed from side to side, but if it is obstructed on one side it is kosher [Pri Chadash in the name of the Ra'avad]. And this could be according to the reason of the "beating of the heart," for when it is not from side to side, it still has the ability to beat upon the heart. However, according to the reason of a perforation, it is simple that even from one side it is treifah, as I have written, for according to the Rambam even with any amount it is treifah. And there is one who rejected these words entirely, saying that it is an error to say so, for we require it to be from side to side [Tevuot Shor subsection 55]. But it is not so, for certainly according to the reason of the "beating of the heart" it is relevant to say so, as I have written [but that which the Be'er Yitzchak wrote, that in the thinness of the lung this obstruction is not relevant, this is certainly astonishing, as the Tevuot Shor wrote there].

What is called "atum"? That the place is hard and its appearance is similar to the rest of the lung, except that it does not rise during inflation. But if its appearance is similar to pus, it is nothing other than "tinarei" and is kosher without examination, for anything that contains pus within it is nothing, as the membranes are healthy; and also regarding the movement of the heart, this is not a hindrance, for during its life the pus was able to exit from it. And the difference to distinguish between "atum" and "yavesh" is simple: "yavesh" can rise during inflation, and the membrane is dry and the scratch of a fingernail is noticeable on it; whereas "atum" does not rise during inflation, and the scratch of a fingernail is not noticeable on it, and the membrane is not dry [Pri Megadim, subsection 15]. And "hard as wood," which will be explained, is harder than "atum," and it is of no avail even if they cause air to exit [ibid.]. And the difference to distinguish between "atum" and "tzumka" is that with "atum" the appearance is similar to the rest of the lung except that the place is hard, but "tzumka" is a different appearance like shriveled fruits, yet it does not rise during inflation like "atum." And the expert examiners find it easy to distinguish between one and the other.

How is the inspection of an atum performed? First, one turns all the lobes downward with the trachea and shakes it, lest there be mucus inside the trachea that blocks one of the bronchi so that the air cannot enter there, and through the shaking it will fall from it. It is good to first put lukewarm water into the trachea that tends slightly toward warmth [see Tevuot Shor, subsection 56], and in the summer days they should be only lukewarm, and one should shake the lung and afterward pour out the water and inflate. Then, if it afterward rises through inflation, it is kosher, for it is possible that the mucus was not so during its life and would have exited to the trachea, and after the shechitah it collected there [Levush]. If it still does not rise through inflation, one places it in lukewarm water so that it may warm slightly, for perhaps it cooled after the shechitah, and afterward one inflates it. If even this does not help, one massages there with the hand in that place extensively, perhaps it will soften and rise through inflation [ibid.].

And if even this is not effective, they shall perform the examination written by the Tur which we brought in section 52: to tear the obstructed place; if fluid is found within it, it is kosher, and if not, they place a straw or a feather and inflate it—if it bubbles, it is kosher, and if not, it is terefah. However, in this there is a dispute regarding how the tearing in the obstructed place is done. In the Shulchan Aruch, section 9, it is written: they bring a knife and tear the membrane alone, literally adjacent to the obstructed place. Thus far his words. And they raised a difficulty regarding this: for if so, even if it bubbles there, what proof is there that the air entered the obstructed place itself? Perhaps the air only came from the sides [Taz, subsection 16]. And it must be said that he holds that whenever there is an obstructed place, it is impossible for air to come literally adjacent to it, and it is necessary to tear adjacent to the obstruction, for if one were to tear in the obstruction itself, it is possible that it would bubble because of this incision [ibid.], and what proof is that, that without this incision, the air would have entered there? And some say that they tear a portion of the obstructed place and place something upon it, and when the place that we did not tear bubbles, it is kosher; and we are not concerned that perhaps in this portion of the obstruction that we tore, it was very clogged, such that if we had not cut it, it would not have bubbled—we are not concerned for this, for presumably the entire obstructed place is uniform [Pri Chadash, subsection 25]. And this appears to be the opinion of the Tur, who wrote "to tear the obstructed place," which implies this place itself [and so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 40, and the Taz, ibid.].

But some say in another manner, that they tear the membrane that is upon the blockage and not the flesh itself, so that the air does not escape when he cuts the flesh of the blockage itself, and this is the intent of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And that which they wrote in the Shulchan Aruch, "literally adjacent to the place of the blockage," the intent is not adjacent along the continuation of the lung, but literally adjacent upon the place of the blockage [Shach subsection 25 and Tevuot Shor subsection 57]. And through the membrane alone there is no concern to say perhaps only this cutting caused it to bubble.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that there is no strictness in this, and in whatever manner it is done, it is a good examination. For behold, one must be precise regarding the essence of this examination—that through the cutting it bubbles and is kosher as has been written—why is it kosher? Behold, ultimately when it was whole, we inflated it and the air did not enter it, and during the animal's life it was not cut and the air did not enter it then. And one must say that from the inflation after its slaughter there is no proof that it was so during its life, for then the spirit of life assists it, as has been written in section 13, see there. And if so, it is possible that even though air does not enter it now, nevertheless during its life air entered, because the inflation through the spirit of life is stronger than all actions performed by man. Therefore, they reveal it through cutting, for if it then bubbles, this is a sign that during its life air entered it even when it was whole. Therefore, all the Rishonim wrote explicitly to cut into the atum itself, and as long as the air then enters through the cut, we have no reason to maintain a defect, lest in the place of the cut it was very blocked such that air did not enter it. For either way, if we come to be concerned, let us also be concerned that perhaps during its life when it was whole, air did not enter in this place; rather, certainly since the majority of animals are kosher, and once it is slaughtered it stands in a presumption of permissibility, since we see now through the cut a change from how it was before, we no longer concern ourselves with it. And those who said that one tears exactly adjacent to the place of the atum, or to tear only the membrane over the atum, this is merely for preference, as the examination is clearer in such a case; but regarding the law, they also admit that if they cut into the atum itself, it is also kosher. And there is clear proof for this, for behold, in the name of the Rashba they brought [Beit Yosef and Bach] that he required specifically adjacent to the place of the atum, for so he wrote in the short Torat HaBayit, yet in the long Torat HaBayit he wrote to tear in the atum itself, see there. Rather, it is certainly as I have written, that this is merely for preference and not a requirement. And also his intention in "adjacent to the place of the atum" is not to say to tear the skin over the atum, but exactly adjacent in its plain sense, and automatically when they cut there exactly adjacent, the place of the atum will be revealed in its entirety and without the membranes, as is understood. And when it bubbles there in the place of the cut in the outer wall of the atum that was revealed through the cutting, behold there is proof that this is not a true atum, and we say that during its life air entered this place even when it was whole. And with this, all that the great authorities questioned regarding this matter is answered [and there is no need for the forced explanation in section 57, and delve into this].

It has already been explained that if pus is found in the atum it is kosher, and the same law applies if turbid blood or decayed flesh is found, it is kosher for the reason explained in section 56. And there is one who wishes to say that this is specifically when the pus is found adjacent to the skin and not in the middle of the atum, for we fear perhaps it became blocked from above [Levushai Serad, subsection 75]. But it is not so, for if it were so, we would require that it be entirely full of pus, and it does not imply thus; rather, certainly since we find some cause for the atum, we say that during its life it was not so, for the reason we explained in the previous section [and the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 17, only said that at a distance from the atum it is not effective, but in the atum itself it is effective in any location; and even at a distance, the Knesset HaGedolah holds that it is effective, as the Pri Megadim wrote, see there. And this is all according to the assessment of the experts: if this pus has the capacity to obstruct the air, it is effective even at a distance, and in any case the words of the Levushai Serad are perplexing].

A sircha from within an atum that passed through massaging, and the atum was permitted by tearing the membrane or the atum itself as has been explained, nevertheless, there is no bedika for the sircha since the membrane is now torn, and previously there was also no bedika for a sircha in the place of an atum. Therefore, there are those who forbid this due to the lack of bedika of the sircha and due to the reason of tartei lereiuta [Tevuat Shor subsection 58]. Nevertheless, in a case of great loss one may permit it, for the bedika is only a stringency as I wrote in section 23, see there; and when the bedika is missing, it is like a lung that was lost, which we permit in a case of great loss as I wrote in siman 39. And regarding the reason of tartei lereiuta, it is only for the reason of a perforation, but for the reason that it cannot flap over the heart, this is not tartei lereiuta as I wrote in section 53, see there. And even regarding the reason of a perforation, the law of tartei lereiuta is not agreed upon by all the poskim as I wrote in section 8, see there [see Levush subsection 77; and what appears to me in my humble opinion I have written, and examine it carefully].

There is one who says that if there is a hole in a place of an atum caused by the handling of the butcher's hand and the like, and even if it was certainly made after the shechitah—if only the membranes were perforated, it is kosher if it bubbles; but if the flesh of the lung was also perforated, it is terefah. This is because in the examination of an atum, only the tearing of the membranes alone is effective, but when the flesh is torn, we are concerned that perhaps the place of the tear was clogged [according to the Be'er Sheva, subsection 79]. However, it is not so according to what we explained in section 59; therefore, when the hole can be attributed to the handling of the hand, it is kosher in any case if the examination of the atum was successful as required, according to what has been explained.

And likewise, there is one who says that if there is found in an opaque spot a red thread extending slightly, it is certainly opaque and a check does not avail for it except in a case of great financial loss and a time of pressing need; but with a white thread, one should pierce the thread and check even when it is not a case of great financial loss [ibid. subsection 78]. And it is true that this matter was cited in the Darkei Moshe, sign 7, in the name of Bedikot Yeshanim, see there; however, in the Shulchan Aruch this matter was not cited, and the later authorities also did not mention this [and so wrote the Tevuot Shor, subsection 59]. And know that the checking of an opaque spot, even if the lung has already been cut, if it is possible to check by means of a tube so that it bubbles at the location of the opaque spot, it is kosher, and this is simple. And there is one who says that when the opaque spot is a wide area and part of it has the appearance of pus and the rest has the appearance of a lung, it is treifah on the grounds that part of the area is not evidence for the whole [Levushai Serad, subsection 83]. And this too is not so according to what we wrote, for the checking of a part is also effective according to the reason we explained in section 59.

It is stated in the Gemara [47b]: A lung that resembles an opata, which is a piece of wood, is terefah. There are several interpretations in the Gemara regarding this. This is what is written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch: A lung that is hard like wood to the touch is terefah, and the same applies if it is light like wood, it is terefah. Thus far their words. Meaning, that it is lighter than all other lungs. "Hard like wood" is according to its plain meaning, that to the touch of the hand it resembles wood. This is a case of a doubtful terefah, since there are several versions in the Gemara regarding this. And similarly, that which the Rambam wrote in chapter 8: A lung that is found swollen like the base of a palm branch is forbidden out of doubt, for this is a strange addition to its body, and perhaps an addition to the body is like a deficiency. Thus far his words. This is also one of the interpretations stated in the Gemara regarding "resembles an opata," and therefore he wrote that it is a doubt, as has been mentioned. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch were not concerned with this, for it is their way not to be precise and clarify in every place what is a certain terefah and what is a doubtful terefah. It is a simple matter that this does not resemble an atum nor a dry lung, and those who are expert know how to distinguish between one and the other [and in section 12 where he wrote "doubtful terefah," it is because he transcribed the wording of the Rambam].

There is one who says that "hard as wood" and "light as wood," even in a minute amount of the lung, is treifah on the grounds that this is like a hole [siman 38, section 24]. And behold, according to the explanation of the Rambam that we brought, it is certainly not so, for he wrote that this is like a deficiency, and we require an entire una or an entire uma; and even according to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, I do not know if this is on the grounds of a hole, and it appears more likely that it is also on the grounds of a deficiency, as the Rambam wrote according to his explanation. And from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in siman 38, section 1, it appears that even according to the explanation of the Rambam it is treifah in a minute amount, see there. and it requires further study, for he compared this to a deficiency; however, he follows his own reasoning, as he understood the words of the Rambam to rule treifah for a deficiency on the exterior, as I wrote in section 47. But according to what we explained there, he only rules treifah for the deficiency of an una or an uma, and so too here. Therefore, this law requires further study and one must deliberate upon it. And it is a simple matter that all these things are measured as it is after inflation.

A lung that has become decomposed, meaning that it is found whole but when they hang it, it is severed and falls piece by piece, is treifah. And even if it does not fall, but rather it has reached the state of affliction of the flesh that a physician scrapes away, it is treifah [Pri Chadash subsection 30]. And there was an incident with one lung that they inflated and pieces fell from it, yet the air did not escape, and the teacher commanded to inflate it with strength until all those pieces of flesh fell, and they saw a new membrane on the lung and it was whole according to its law, and they declared it kosher, for the pieces were worn flesh that was upon the lung [ibid. in the name of Hagahot Mahariw].

It is stated in the Gemara [46b]: A lung, a portion of which has dried out, is terefah, provided that it crumbles by the fingernail; that is to say, when one presses upon it with the fingernail, it breaks. For even though regarding the blemishes of a firstborn, in the case of dryness of the ear, it is called dry when they pierce it and it does not produce blood even if it does not crumble by the fingernail, this is because the air rules over it, which is not the case with the lung, which is placed within the body and the air does not rule over it. As long as the dryness has not reached the point of crumbling by the fingernail, it will return to its health [Gemara], for wind and air putrefy and damage the wound [Rashi, s.v. "ruach"]. And so wrote the Rambam in chapter 8, and the Tur, and all the poskim.

One must wonder about our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 13: "And if one scratches with a fingernail upon the flesh of the lung and the scratch is visible within it, it is called dry and is treifah," thus far his words. For from where does he have the basis to say this regarding a matter that is explicitly stated in the Gemara to the contrary—that as long as it does not crumble, it is kosher? And they have already wondered about him regarding this [Ma'aseh Yom Tov in Divrei Hamudot, letter 49]. And there is one who wrote in this wording: "What is considered dry? When it crumbles with a fingernail; and we are not experts in this, therefore when one scratches with a fingernail upon the lung and the scratch is visible within it, it is considered dry and treifah due to doubt" [Simlah Chadashah, section 28]. But it does not seem correct to say so, for what expertise is required in this? Furthermore, from the wording of our teacher, the Rema, it is not implied that this is due to a lack of expertise, as he did not write "for we are not experts in this" as is his way in every other place. Therefore, it seems to me that he wrote this as the essential law, for "crumbling" is not specifically when it is entirely separated from one another; rather, if the separation is merely recognizable from one another, it is called "crumbling," as we say in Rosh Hashanah [13b] regarding the tithes of rice and millet: "since they are made into parchin parchin," etc., and the Aruch explained [letter 80]: "rows upon rows," that is, garden beds, see there. And similarly in tractate Kelim [chapter 12, mishnah 3]: "The parchin are pure," and they explained that they are irons hanging in the hearth and at their ends are forks [Tosafot Yom Tov in the name of the Kesef Mishneh], and because the forks are separated from one another even though they are in one piece, they are called parchin. And so too here, when one scratches with a fingernail and the scratch is visible within it, it is as if they are separated from one another like one garden bed from another. And therefore, even though this term is found in the Shas also referring to total separation, such as "crumbled gold" [Bava Metzia 70a] and like "one crumbles legumes on a festival" [Beitzah 12b], nevertheless, since we find this term also not referring to total separation, if so, from where do we know that the Sages of blessed memory intended total separation? [See Tevuot Shor, subsection 65, and according to what I have written, everything is settled, and such is the opinion of the Perishah and the Levush, see there].

It is a simple matter that when it is not crumbled by a fingernail it is kosher and requires no examination; and even though, in any event, it is no better than a shriveled lung which will be explained, and regarding shriveling one indeed requires examination, however, this is regarding a case where it is shriveled in its entirety or its majority, or an entire lobe according to the opinion of some poskim, as will be explained. But regarding a part of a lobe or a part of the uma, we have no concern [Beit Yosef]. And it is also simple that if when the mark of the fingernail is seen, and over a period of time the mark disappears and it returns to its original state, it is kosher; for since it returns to its original state slowly, this is not "dry" [Simlah Chadashah]. And so it appears clear to me that if they massage the lung and it returns to its original state, it also avails, unlike one who wishes to forbid in such a case [ibid.], for there is no reason to forbid this. And the difference between "opaque" and "dry" was explained in section 55, that a dry lung can rise through inflation, only the membrane is dry. Therefore, it does not avail in a dry lung when there is moisture or pus inside it, for since the skin is dry it is treifah. And so too the opposite: if the membrane is not dry but the inside is dry, we have no concern, for it is no worse than a deficiency on the inside, where we established that it is kosher. And so too if one membrane is dry and the second is not dry, it is also kosher, for it is no worse than if it were peeled. And regarding the reason for "dry," there are some among the later authorities who grasped the reason that "dry" is like a hole, and so it appears from the side of logic, and so wrote the Rashba. However, the Rambam holds that it is due to the reason of "deficient," for when it dries a little, its end is to dry in its entirety, and we explained his reason in section 47, see there [and see Kesef Mishneh chapter 8, end of halakhah 7]. And it is a great principle that any dryness that has not reached the point of crumbling by a fingernail is included in the category of shriveled, which will be explained.

If the lung shriveled so that it became like shriveled fruit, but has not yet reached the point of being dry, our Sages of blessed memory, the sages of the Mishnah [54a], received as a law given to Moses at Sinai that if the cause was due to human beings who frightened it—such as if they slaughtered another in its presence or any other type of fear they caused it—it will never return to its health and it is treifah. But if it is by the hands of Heaven, such as if it was frightened by the sound of thunder or lightning and the like, it is kosher because it would return to its health if it were alive, and it is not a treifah that lacks the ability to live. And so too if it shriveled due to the fear of other creatures, such as from the roar of a lion or the voice of a predator and the like, it is considered as by the hands of Heaven and is kosher [Tur]. Therefore, it is proper that slaughterers be careful not to slaughter a living animal in the presence of another living animal, so that the lung does not shrivel and require examination as will be explained, and furthermore because there is in this the suffering of living creatures and it is a complete prohibition, and so wrote several great Acharonim.

Shrinkage is not treifah unless the entire lung or the majority of it has shrunk, for the majority is like the whole. There are those who forbid even if a complete lobe has shrunk [Taz and Shach subsection 29 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo and Hagahot Ashri in the name of the Bahag], and certainly a complete large lobe. However, in this case, it does not require the examination that will be explained regarding the law of shrinkage of the whole or the majority; rather, it is sufficient to place it in water and massage it, or to put water into the trachea, and if it returns to its original state, it is kosher [ibid.]. There is one who wishes to say that even if a part of a lobe or a part of a large lobe has shrunk, it requires examination [Bach], but his words were rejected by all the great authorities [Shach, Pri Chadash, Tevuot Shor, and Levushai Serad], and it is not even called a deficiency [Levushai Serad subsection 122]. However, regarding the shrinkage of a complete lobe, all the great authorities agreed that it is treifah if it does not return to its original state through massaging or putting water into the trachea, as I have written. If part of the lobe returned to its original state and part did not return, it is kosher. It appears to me that even if the majority did not return to its original state and a minority of the lobe did return, it is also kosher, and we do not say in this case that the majority is like the whole. For since this law is not from the fundamental law of the Gemara and is merely a stringency, we should not add to it. There is one who says that even in this case we say the majority is like the whole [Simlah Chadashah section 34], but it does not seem correct to be stringent in a matter that is nothing more than a stringency, especially when many disagree with the fundamental law; how then could we impose a stringency upon a stringency? [And I wonder, for the Tevuot Shor himself in subsection 83 wrote that one who examines the Bahag will see explicitly that we approach this from the reason of an obstruction and not from the reason of shrinkage].

And how do we know if it came to her by the hand of man or by the hand of Heaven? Our Sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] to perform this examination: to place the entire lung in water for a full twenty-four hour period, and the water must be lukewarm for the entire twenty-four hour period. This is during cold weather, and one places it in a vessel where the water does not sweat through its back and leak out, so that they do not cool quickly. And if it was during hot weather, one places it in water that is a bit cold, for they are like lukewarm during the days of the cold [Rashba], and in a vessel where the water sweats through its back, such as a white earthenware vessel [Rashi], so that they remain cold for the entire twenty-four hour period. And it has already been explained that the measure of lukewarm is like the saliva in a person's mouth, or like water drawn from the river during the summer days. And let it not be difficult for you how it is possible for the water to be in one state for a full twenty-four hour period, for we have already explained in section 5 that there is no exact measure for lukewarm; rather, not very hot and not very cold, and all the levels between warmth and coolness are in the category of lukewarm, see there. Therefore, it is possible for them to be lukewarm for the entire twenty-four hour period. And at the conclusion of the twenty-four hour period, one sees: if it returned to its natural state like all lungs, entirely or most of it, it is a sign that it is by the hand of Heaven or by other creatures, and it is kosher. And if most of it remains in its shrunken state, it is a sign that this is by the hand of man, and it is treifah. And then no massaging and no action helps it, even if it returns to its natural state afterward, for after the examination of our Sages, of blessed memory, we have no other examination. But before we performed this examination for it, if by massaging with the hands the shrinkage was removed, it would seem from reason that it is effective; for in every matter that occurs in the lung, it is permitted to massage and to inflate, and when the defect is removed, it is kosher. And why should this defect be worse than other defects? Since there is a doubt whether it came to her by the hand of Heaven or by the hand of man. However, if it is apparent that it came to her by the hand of man, the examination does not help her; but in a case of doubt, why should massaging and inflation not help? And even in this time, we can rely on this [and see Be'er Sheva subsection 106, and what appears correct to me I have written]. And see what I wrote in section 17.

There are some of our teachers who are in doubt in a case where we saw a lion pursuing her, or we saw that she was startled by the sound of thunder and the like, and after some duration of time they slaughtered her and the lung was found to be shrunken: whether we say that she requires no examination at all, for we have something upon which to attribute it, and it is similar to "a wolf came and took the intestines" and like a perforation in a place where the hand of the butcher operates, which is permitted on the grounds that once slaughtered she stands in her status of permissibility and the majority of animals are kosher; or perhaps it is not similar to there, for there we say that it occurred after slaughter, but this, which certainly occurred during life, we do not attribute to permissibility, for it is a doubt regarding a Torah law and is to be treated stringently [Rashba in his Novellae, page 55:].

But most of the poskim agreed that whenever we have cause to attribute it to an act of Heaven, we attribute it so and no examination is required, for so it is proven from the sugya of the Shas [Yam Shel Shelomo siman 90, Shach subsection 30, Taz, and Peri Chadash, and this is the opinion of the Ran there]. And conversely, if it appears to have been done by human hands, examination is of no avail [Peri Chadash and Tevuot Shor]. The examination is only when the cause is not known to us at all, and this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, as well, as he wrote in section 15: How do we examine it if the matter is in doubt as to what caused it to come upon her? Thus far his words. And it is explicitly explained that if there is something to attribute it to, we attribute it. And even though in siman 50 he himself ruled that we do not say "once slaughtered, she is permitted" except regarding something we can attribute to having occurred specifically after slaughter, and not when the defect occurred during life, nevertheless, it is different here, for behold, we see the cause, and why should we not attribute it to this? It is not similar to other defects where we have nothing to attribute them to. And there are those who wish to infer from the language of the Tur and the Rambam that they do not hold like this opinion, since they wrote plainly that one must examine. But this is no inference at all, for certainly it is so, that most times it is impossible to know the cause, and it is a remote occurrence for it to be known from what cause the shriveling occurred; but if we saw the cause, why should we not attribute it to it? And shriveling due to illness is considered like an act of Heaven [Simlah Chadashah section 32].

And all this is according to the law, but in practice, our teacher, the Rema, of blessed memory, wrote, and this is his wording: It seems that we should not rely on this examination, for we are not experts in everything that requires examination; and if it appears that it came to her by the hand of Heaven, one should not declare it kosher without this examination, and in this case one may rely on our examination. Thus far his words. And there are some of the great authorities who hold that in such a case, no examination is required at all even in our time [Shach, subsection 31, in the name of the Rashal]. However, if they examined it and it did not return to its original state, it is obviously terefah, for the matter is proven that previously they frightened her even by the hand of man; and we do not say that due to our lack of expertise in this examination it did not return to its original state, for we only say this to be stringent and not to be lenient. And know that this matter of attributing the shriveling to the hand of man or to the hand of Heaven applies when some time has passed from the fright; but if they slaughtered her immediately after the fright, we do not attribute the shriveling to this, for it is not logical that in such a short time it shriveled [Rashba, ibid.].

We have already explained in siman 35, section 4, that the terefot of tzimkah is due to a deficiency, for it cannot fan the air over the heart. Therefore, in the case where the varda has shriveled, one should be lenient. Even though we are stringent regarding a complete una that has shriveled, nevertheless, regarding the varda—where in any case the majority of opinions are lenient regarding a deficiency of the varda, as I wrote there in section 27—therefore, regarding shriveling, which is also a stringency in a complete una as I wrote, one should be lenient. And there is one who says that we require that there remain from it the size of a myrtle leaf that has not shriveled [siman 48, section 34]. But it appears to me as I have written. [And also the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 20, was stringent in this, for they follow their reasoning at the beginning of siman 35 that everything is due to a perforation, but it is not so, as I wrote there; and so wrote the Levushei Serad, subsection 128, see there].

The Rambam wrote in chapter 7, law 14: A needle that is found in the lung, one inflates it; if air does not exit from it, it is certain that this needle entered by way of the bronchi and did not perforate. But if the lung was cut before inflation and the needle was found in it, this is forbidden, for it is highly probable that it perforated when it entered. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter: For example, while the lung was whole, they felt in it by manual palpation that there is a needle in it, one inflates it, and if the air does not exit from it, it is kosher. And even though most swallowed items go by way of the esophagus, as it is not the way of the trachea to swallow, and if so, it must have exited from the esophagus to the intestines and perforated the intestines and exited and perforated the membrane of the lung and entered into it—we do not say so. For if so, the lung would bubble, and we do not fear that perhaps there is truly a perforation in the lung but that a membrane grew over it and it was closed, and therefore air did not exit from it; for we do not establish a prohibition since we see that it is whole and there is no sirka in it that would cause us to fear the growth of a membrane. Therefore, we say that it swallowed the needle by way of the trachea, for the lung is close to the trachea, and it entered the bronchi of the lung, and from the bronchi to the flesh of the lung, and did not perforate the outer membrane. And even if perhaps it perforated the inner membrane, we have no concern with it, since the outer membrane is whole. And likewise, we do not fear that perhaps the needle consumed some flesh from the inside, for a deficiency from the inside is not called a deficiency, as I wrote in section 41 [see Rashi 48b, s.v. sampona, and see Lechem Mishneh there].

And in this, there is no distinction between whether the needle is thin or thick, and even if one of its ends is as thick as a date stone and the thick side is toward the cavity of the body—which in such a case in the liver is treifah, as will be explained in siman 41, on the grounds that it certainly entered with its thin side through the esophagus and from there entered the liver, and therefore its thick side is toward the cavity of the body, for if it had entered with its thin side into the liver through the trachea, the thin side would be toward the cavity of the body—nevertheless, in the lung there is no difference in this. Since the bronchi of the lung are wide and the lung is very close to the trachea, and the flesh of the lung is soft and constantly fluttering, we say that the needle entered even through its thick side from the trachea into the flesh through the bronchi. And we also do not fear that perhaps in its passage it perforated from one bronchus to another, which is treifah, for we are not to assume a defect in that which we do not see; and behold, our eyes see that the lung is whole from every side and has no perforation in it, and of necessity the needle did not enter through the esophagus, so how can we assume a defect regarding the perforation of one bronchus to another when it is not a necessity at all to say so? And there is one who says that initially it is proper to open the lung and see if it is not embedded from one bronchus to another [Shach section 36], for whatever we are able to clarify, we clarify; and after the fact, if he did not do so, it does not invalidate [ibid.].

And all this is when the lung is whole and they felt the needle while it was in its wholeness and they inflated it and the air did not exit from it. And such is the law even if they did not feel the needle, but rather they inflated it because of another matter that occurred to it and it was found whole such that the air does not exit from it, and afterwards it was cut and a needle was found in one of the pieces, the law is also thus [Ra'avad there]. And we do not say that since they did not feel the needle beforehand, the inflation does not remove the doubt of a perforation from the needle, for it is not so; for what does it matter to me if the inflation was because of the needle or because of another matter? Ultimately, the essence of the inflation is to see if the air does not exit from it, and it is the same to me if they knew of the needle or if they did not know, for it has been clarified that it is whole.

But if they did not feel the needle while it was whole, and they also did not inflate it, and they cut the lung and a needle was found in one of the pieces, it is treifah in any case. This is so whether the needle is thin or whether it is thick, and even if one of its ends is thick like a date stone and the thick side is toward the side of the bronchus and the thin side is toward the side of the body cavity, it is treifah. Even though it certainly entered through the trachea to the bronchus and punctured the bronchus with its point and entered from there into the smaller bronchi and punctured into the flesh, nevertheless, we fear perhaps it also punctured the membranes of the lung with its point and then retracted. And all the more so if the thick side is toward the cavity and the thin side is toward the bronchus, it is certainly probable that the needle came by way of the esophagus and from there to the intestines and punctured and exited and came into the lung by way of its point and punctured the membranes. For the general rule is that whenever there is a needle in it, the examination is mandatory by Torah law, and since it was cut, there is no examination here, and it is a doubtful treifah according to the law of a needle found in the body cavity. And all the more so if the needle was found upon the lung, it is treifah for this reason.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 16 that in this time we must declare treif any lung in which a needle is found, and we do not apply the law of "complete" to it except in a case of great financial loss, for then one may be lenient and check by means of inflation. Thus far his words. For several of the Rishonim wrote this, that the check is difficult—to check the entire lung to see if air does not escape from any location—but in a case of great financial loss, it is necessary to rely on our checking. And even this is only when they checked it while it was complete; but if they found it in a piece, even though they checked it with inflation beforehand, one may not rely on this inflation even in a case of great financial loss. For since they did not know beforehand that the needle was inside it, there is a great concern that perhaps they did not examine it thoroughly [Siman 48, section 37, and as is implied in the Shach, subsection 34].

And if a drop of blood is found on the outside opposite the needle or somewhat near the location of the needle, it is treifah by law, even if they checked it while it was whole and the air did not escape, for a drop of blood testifies to the perforation, as Chazal said in another context: if there is no wound, from where does a drop of blood come [51a]. And ab initio it is proper to see if there is no drop of blood opposite the needle, but ex post facto it is not a requirement. And all the more so if they see the needle embedded and protruding to the outside, it is treifah even without a drop of blood, and we do not say that it protruded after slaughter. This is not similar to a needle found in the reticulum in siman 48, and we do not compare treifot to one another [Shach, subsection 33, see there]. And what constitutes a drop of blood will be explained in siman 48, section 69, see there.

If a pit is found in the lung like a date pit that is not sharp, whether it is whole or whether it is cut, it is kosher, for it is not the way of such a pit to puncture, and it certainly entered by way of the windpipe. However, a sharp pit like an olive pit has the law of a needle [siman 348 section 39], and so too anything similar to this.

A lung that has softened from within and a needle is found in it is treifah in every case, and even if it is found in the flesh of the lung, for it certainly punctured one of the bronchi when it entered the flesh of the lung; and since there is no flesh to protect it, it is treifah, as has been written in section 38 [ibid.]:

A needle that was found in the large bronchus of the lung, whether whole or broken, whether a large needle or a small one, and even if both its ends are sharp, it is kosher in every case, for this place is very wide and is literally adjacent to the trachea, and it entered through the trachea and did nothing. According to the essential law, the poskim wrote that it does not even require an examination. However, according to what I wrote below at the beginning of siman 39, that whenever there is any slight defect we are accustomed to examine it, here too one must examine the lung by inflation and see very carefully if air does not escape from any place [Shach, subsection 35]. But ex post facto, if they did not examine it, it does not invalidate, for not all defects are equal in requiring the examination to be a prerequisite [Pri Megadim, ibid.]. The law of a hole in the lung from its birth will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 50, see there. And know that the examination mentioned in section 72, to leave the lung for a twenty-four hour period in water, even if the examination turned out well and it is kosher, nevertheless the lung is treifah for the reason that it was left for a twenty-four hour period in water prior to salting, and "soaked is like cooked."